so why aren't we even contemplating expelling a terrorist state from their seat at the top table?

UNSC permanent seats aren't gold stars for being nice or given out because we like a state.

They're there because that state is a major military power with whom outright war to impose the will of the others on is generally considered to be unthinkable. Instead of a UNSC mandated action running into World War 3 with them, we get a veto.

Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.

It is possible that technological advancements will produce a counter to that that renders it impotent, but until then, nobody is going to kick Russia off the UNSC.

It's well past time but you kind of uh, can't do that? How do you work for the Telegraph writing articles about the UN and not know how the UN works???

How in the effing world are these people "Journalists" writing for one the most read newspapers in the world, being diceptive to their audiance who swallows up anything that pumps up their ego . It is a demagogary to not know why russia has a permanent seat at the UN security council in the first place.

Won't happen. If you can kick russia off then you have a precedent for kicking anyone off. A permanent member will veto any precedent setting motion.

It was time a year and a half ago already. UN is an impotent organisation, and they won't ever do it